In Defense Of Censorship

a reply to: FauxMulder

People don't have a right not to be offended.

To resolve an argument we only have 2 options which are violence and speech.
The way I see it, people wanting to limit speech are doing so at the risk of increased violence.

Also the "fire" analogy doesn't quite fit as nobody is allowed to yell "fire" whereas your gender/race/sexuality are obviously linked to what you can say before the professionally offended speak out.

.

You are an employee at McDonald's. A customer walks in and you say "Whats up you ugly fat a$$, you want an extra large fry today?"

You do realize, that you just fixed the obesity epidemic?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well said DB. That's the confusion I wanted to clear up because it seems to me some people think the constitution gives them the right to say whatever they want to whoever they want.

Along with speaking freely, it would also be nice if people could listen to opposing views without being triggered so hard.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Being "triggered" to some means the same thing as gamma radiation to Bruce Banner.

They think that it infuses them with superpowers and enables them to "smash" anything they find offensive.

a reply to: FauxMulder

I have said it before, and heard it said, many times; as an American citizen you do not have the right to not be offended. To assert such a right would be to infringe on the other person's right to free speech. However, you do have the right to walk away from someone who is using rude and offensive language. Only in this manner could "censorship" be applied on a personal level.

There is also a generally acceptable expectation for speech which is to be carried on in "polite" company. Sadly, it seems this has fallen into decline over the past several years. I think this is where an employer has the right for control of the speech and actions of their employees. It matters little if this speech or actions are directed toward other employees or the customers of a business, a certain amount of decorum should be upheld.

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
a reply to: dfnj2015

In other words, just respecting someone else is not good enough. Allowing me to be disrespectful means you are respecting me.

Well then you create the problem of being disrespectful via your spoken word by being an intolerant A-hole then expect to be respected in return despite your own lack of respect??? Did I get that right?

I'm not advocating this position. I'm just saying I've heard people say that unless you respect their intolerance, you are being intolerant. I see the self-referential-you-are-a-hypocrite-unless-you-agree-with-me argument all the time.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
a reply to: dfnj2015

In other words, just respecting someone else is not good enough. Allowing me to be disrespectful means you are respecting me.

Well then you create the problem of being disrespectful via your spoken word by being an intolerant A-hole then expect to be respected in return despite your own lack of respect??? Did I get that right?

I'm not advocating this position. I'm just saying I've heard people say that unless you respect their intolerance, you are being intolerant. I see the self-referential-you-are-a-hypocrite-unless-you-agree-with-me argument all the time.

It's a funny thing
I accept and understand why some people believe in evolution while I think it's absurd
I have not seen any (that I can remember) that can accept that I believe in creation

It doesn't matter what a person believes, why can't people just say, whatever floats your boat and move along
Accept they have a different opinion, it's like atheist fundamentalists who want to beat you down
Not saying that there are no creationists that are a little arrogant and fundy, just doesn't help people getting along
We are all different

Now, let's draw the line against abusive and violent people, common sense prevails.

I have a half formed sleep deprived thought I am going to drop here and see if some of you smart fellows can hash it out.

This is obviously not an all encompassing thought about free speech.

back in the day a certain degree of self correction was built into the society we had... talk bad about someones wife down at the pub you were liable to get a beating for your troubles, and the authorities probably would tell you not to be talking about someones wife at the pub while they took you to the doctors.

Truly screw someone over a duel was not out of the question... Over time that was legislated out of polite society.

So what was once considered common sense is now missing from settled case law as to what constitutes free speech...

Or I might need to shut up take some advil pm and try harder to get a full nights sleep tonight.

a reply to: FauxMulder

I think you're confusing the principle of free speech with the first amendment. One is a universal human right, the other is a constitutional amendment. One applies to every human being,the other to Americans.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't see where he is confusing them. In fact in one sentence he separated these two.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No, I understand the difference. I was trying to point out that I often see people thinking the 1st amendment gives them the right to say whatever, whenever, to whoever (free speech), it does not. Maybe my attempt to clarify that wasn't clear enough.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Perhaps you're right and I misunderstood, and apologies for that, but it's the 1st amendment that protects you from your government, and not free speech. I think the distinction is important.

As for censorship, I can get along with anyone who has differing views so long as they believe in free speech, since that's what allows us to have differing opinions in the first place. But I cannot get along with someone who advocates or makes room for censorship.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
a reply to: dfnj2015

In other words, just respecting someone else is not good enough. Allowing me to be disrespectful means you are respecting me.

Well then you create the problem of being disrespectful via your spoken word by being an intolerant A-hole then expect to be respected in return despite your own lack of respect??? Did I get that right?

I'm not advocating this position. I'm just saying I've heard people say that unless you respect their intolerance, you are being intolerant. I see the self-referential-you-are-a-hypocrite-unless-you-agree-with-me argument all the time.

It's a funny thing
I accept and understand why some people believe in evolution while I think it's absurd
I have not seen any (that I can remember) that can accept that I believe in creation

It doesn't matter what a person believes, why can't people just say, whatever floats your boat and move along
Accept they have a different opinion, it's like atheist fundamentalists who want to beat you down
Not saying that there are no creationists that are a little arrogant and fundy, just doesn't help people getting along
We are all different

Now, let's draw the line against abusive and violent people, common sense prevails.

We can agree that physical violence is breaking secular law.

I think the whole anti-political correct sentiment is over the top. Nobody is advocating make laws to enforce political correctness. I think most people who believe in PC are doing it under the idea that it is desirable to be kind and considerate to other people's beliefs if they are different than your own. But I have heard it argued countless times that NOT allowing me to be political incorrect means you are not respecting my right to have an opinion. One case is focused on the person being spoken to and the other case is focused on the person doing the speaking.

I happened to think evolution is science fact. But I also accept the notion that an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time, including 3 seconds ago, including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. So if you believe in creationism, as long as you believe in an omnipotent God, what difference does evolution make? I would argue anyone who says one single word against evolution is showing a complete lack of faith in their own God's powers.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you think that the FCC is wrong?

I have wondered if free speech can be limited if there is no reality based on it.. For instance, this pet shop opened up near me, and people got outraged and planned a protest because they thought this place was a puppy mill. So my local news agency investigated this place, checked their logs/books, and it turns out this pet shop is doing everything legal and by the book, but here is the catch, they never cancelled the protest, and did it anyway.. WTF??

There is free speech, based on a cause, or a truth, and then there is mentally ill free speech, which has no basis in reality. I guess it is a fine line, but when protesting over lies (BLM, etc). Should free speech be allowed when it is false and can cause damage or harm to a person or business whom did nothing wrong?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you think that the FCC is wrong?

I do, yes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Interesting. So you think TV should not be regulated and allow them to be like HBO, where the children are watching?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I have a half formed sleep deprived thought I am going to drop here and see if some of you smart fellows can hash it out.

This is obviously not an all encompassing thought about free speech.

back in the day a certain degree of self correction was built into the society we had... talk bad about someones wife down at the pub you were liable to get a beating for your troubles, and the authorities probably would tell you not to be talking about someones wife at the pub while they took you to the doctors.

Truly screw someone over a duel was not out of the question... Over time that was legislated out of polite society.

So what was once considered common sense is now missing from settled case law as to what constitutes free speech...

Or I might need to shut up take some advil pm and try harder to get a full nights sleep tonight.

I absolutely agree with you that society in general but varying in nature between specific cultures and regions across the world has it's own kind of unwritten laws about what is acceptable/non acceptable free speech. In a time of great men whom many of us know and quote in regards to freedom and liberty to this day it was once acceptable to have a duel to the death with pistols over words.

However we live in a time where a person can spew the most vile, hateful and trollish garbage out of their mouth and feel safe as they hide behind an imaginary wall of legal protection via written laws against violence. These are the biggest cowards as they hurl insult after insult from behind their fortress of perceived security. They are also the first to cry foul when their hateful rhetoric is shut down with force.

I would say that for the most part the 1st amendment is doing it's job as it is intended to but as for "philosophical free speech" good luck with that because there will always be someone that doesn't mind catching a charge when you line step or terminate your employment because you poorly represent the company via your "freedom of expression". If most of us are honest with ourselves then we know that there is some point, some line in our own psyche that when crossed will dare I say it "trigger" us. How many of you would let someone incessantly say heinous things about your wife, children, mothers, sisters before you react? I don't mean some random internet stranger either, I'm talking about someone that knows enough about you to hit those key buttons and tell the truth in a way that it hurts, those words can "trigger" even the most stoic of us.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Interesting. So you think TV should not be regulatde and allow them to be like HBO, where the children are watching?

Yes, I do.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: FauxMulder

I can get along with anyone who has differing views so long as they believe in free speech, since that's what allows us to have differing opinions in the first place.

Absolutely. How boring would this world be if we all agreed on every little thing?

But I cannot get along with someone who advocates or makes room for censorship.

I think censorship has it's place. Like the examples I gave in the OP, the workplace for one. ATS is another. We accept it as a stipulation for employment / using the site. If I wanted a completely uncensored experience I would go to the cesspool that is 4Chan. I think ATS is a much better environment for debate / conversation. A children's TV show is a good place to have censors in place. I don't want my 5 year old hearing about sex and cuss words and such.
.